Should I eat less carbs?
Slu13
Posts: 44 Member
So my friend has lost 2 stone but cutting out carbs, she has lots of weight to loose whereas I only have 1 stone. Should I be reducing my carb intake to help speed weight loss? I do like my mash and jacket potatoes 
4
Replies
-
You should set your calorie target to a calorie deficit to lose up to 1% of your body weight per week, log meticulously and honestly, be patient, measure your weight regularly, and not compare yourself with others. You can't speed up weightloss, you can only make it easier. If you do try to speed up weightloss beyond what you body can handle, it will actually be harder short term, slower long term, and possibly not even happening.16
-
Don't compare yourself to your friend, You have lost 1 stone, that's terrific. Keep doing what you're doing because its working. There's far too much bad press on carbs, they are not the reason we gain weight or can't lose, losing is all about taking in less calories than we burn.11
-
Your friend didn't lose weight from cutting carbs, she lost weight by cutting calories. Cutting carbs helped her weight loss to happen quickly initially as lowering her carb intake would have made her lose water weight. Her lower carb intake had no impact on her rate of fat loss... Except for reducing her calories.21
-
kommodevaran wrote: »You should set your calorie target to a calorie deficit to lose up to 1% of your body weight per week, log meticulously and honestly, be patient, measure your weight regularly, and not compare yourself with others. You can't speed up weightloss, you can only make it easier. If you do try to speed up weightloss beyond what you body can handle, it will actually be harder short term, slower long term, and possibly not even happening.
Agreed.
I will add that I limit carbs to certain times a day and balance them with other macros based on how I've found my body to react to them. It makes a difference in how hungry I feel and when, so it's part of how I manage calories as a whole to fuel my body in the way it needs and limit the times when I would otherwise tend to snack or overeat. This is one of those things that takes time to figure out, adjusting what macros you eat when and paying attention to how you respond throughout the day.
I also stay away from carbs that I like to eat with other high calorie/ low nutrition foods (usually condiments) because I don't want to spend calories on mayo or sour cream. Even though I love mayo. For me that means no sandwiches or french fries (even baked fries), and since I don't really like a potato without butter and sour cream it just makes sense to avoid the potato.
So, it has less to do with "carbs are bad" and more to do with how they fit into my nutrition on a broader scale.
5 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Your friend didn't lose weight from cutting carbs, she lost weight by cutting calories. Cutting carbs helped her weight loss to happen quickly initially as lowering her carb intake would have made her lose water weight. Her lower carb intake had no impact on her rate of fat loss... Except for reducing her calories.
This! Also, don't compare yourself to anybody.4 -
Your friend lost water weight and some fat. If they increase carbs, they will regain the water weight. Reducing carbs is no secret path to fat loss.
Whether you personally should cut carbs, ask yourself things like, do carbs trigger overeating? Do carbs crowd out adequate protein and fats? Do I like a lower carb way of eating and is it sustainable long term? Do I have trouble with hunger signalling and am always hungry?
There is some evidence that lowering carbs reduces hunger and cravings. But there is no evidence that carbs are any more effective at fat loss than any other form of calorie restriction.11 -
I didn't cut carbs and lost 30lbs in just over 3 months. I cut out high calorie carbs like breads and pastas because they weren't worth the calories for such a small amount of food.12
-
It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients18
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?13 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro24 -
I wouldn't worry about too much about limiting a particular macro (carbs, proteins, or fat). Just make sure you're eating a balanced diet with a reasonable (read: not too large or too small) calorie deficit and sufficient exercise, and you'll be fine. I can understand getting frustrated because your friend is losing at a faster pace, but that only means that she has found what works for her. Apparently, something different works for you, and since you say you love certain carbohydrate-rich foods, trying to cut them sounds like it would be a losing proposition for you. I know it was for me, lol. I'll give up cake and ice cream, etc., but no one had better touch my potatoes!4
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?7 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
25 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Wait, are you saying potatoes aren't nutritious?16 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Wait, are you saying potatoes aren't nutritious?
Maybe they are, but they're full of evil toxins!
Acrylamide (a carcinogen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Occurrence_in_food_and_associated_health_risks
Glycoalkaloids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Toxicity
evil
And look at all the other chemicals in them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Comparison_to_other_major_staple_foods
23 -
I have been in a similar situation. Simply reducing fats and increasing vegetables has not worked well for me. I am now working on cutting carbs and going with some fats, protein foods, vegetables and fruit. I just got going on this a few days ago and I don't want to weigh more than once weekly. I guess, I would say to try it and see what works for you. Some people do well on vegetarian/vegan diets, others do well on paleo and other plans that allow more fats and less carbs. Try cutting carbs for a couple of weeks and see what happens. Just make sure you are getting enough fats and proteins.4
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants17 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
I would love to hear a LCHF evangelist explain away the Blue Zones. It gets brought up often but always gets ignored.8 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
I would love to hear a LCHF evangelist explain away the Blue Zones. It gets brought up often but always gets ignored.
I think tennisdude said that "For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required." I took that to mean that one does not need more than 100g to hit optimal, but more would not subtract from that.
But... I'm quite a bit below that so I want to know why 100g is optimal too.
I'm assuming he doesn't mean it for everyone in all circumstances 
7 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
There's not much micronutrient benefit in bacon, butter, MCT oil, bulletproof coffee or "fat bombs" either. What was your point again?16 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Wait, are you saying potatoes aren't nutritious?
No that’s not what I am saying.
I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!
Potatoes have potassium, vitamin c, B6 and fibre. But there are plenty of other carb choices which deliver a lot more bang for the buck.
A healthy optimal diet doesn’t require potatoes, but can include potatoes if that’s ones preference.
8 -
I heard a talk from an NHS dietitian early this week, who said the amount of carbs on your plate should be the size of your clenched fist, so very little if you are eating pasta but probably about the size helping of potatoes I would choose. Her recommendation was the portion of protein should be the size of the palm of your hand, and the thickness of your little finger. And then fill the rest of your plate with veggies. This struck me as really easy advice to follow.
I would find it really hard to restrict the quantity of pasta to such a small helping, so I have found it easier to just not eat it. I think it is about finding what works for you. Personally I have found it easier to reduce carbs and eat more protein, as it seems to keep me full, but this might not be the same for everyone. I have not cut carbs completely as on the few days I have done this without intending to, I have felt very odd.11 -
Low carb diets do usually have an initial bigger loss due to water weight. After that you would lose at the same rate with the same calorie intake as someone eating more carbs.
Some people find it easier and more satisfying to eat more protein and fats and less carbohydrates.
A no carb diet is not really a great idea long term. Vegetables and fruits have carbs. Dairy has carbs. Whole grains have carbs. All those foods have tons of nutrients and fiber that help your body function well. You can reduce carb intake more moderately though if you wish.
You should eat in a way you like and can sustain in your life long term. It does you very little good to lose a bunch of weight fast and regain it all because you can not stick to a diet without potatoes. You just need to eat the right amount of calories to lose weight though so you can keep eating any food you like.5 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I heard a talk from an NHS dietitian early this week, who said the amount of carbs on your plate should be the size of your clenched fist, so very little if you are eating pasta but probably about the size helping of potatoes I would choose. Her recommendation was the portion of protein should be the size of the palm of your hand, and the thickness of your little finger. And then fill the rest of your plate with veggies. This struck me as really easy advice to follow.
I would find it really hard to restrict the quantity of pasta to such a small helping, so I have found it easier to just not eat it. I think it is about finding what works for you. Personally I have found it easier to reduce carbs and eat more protein, as it seems to keep me full, but this might not be the same for everyone. I have not cut carbs completely as on the few days I have done this without intending to, I have felt very odd.
Ya, it's easier for me to reduce rice than pasta, so I have pasta less. I can be satisfied with 50-100 g of cooked rice, depending on what all else is with it, but for pasta I want at least 113 g (4 oz) and more like 142 (5 oz).
Meals also feel odd to me if they don't have the "right" (for me) macro mix, most notably when I lived in vegetarian yoga communities for three years and had to really work to get in enough protein for me.2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?11 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
I would love to hear a LCHF evangelist explain away the Blue Zones. It gets brought up often but always gets ignored.
I think tennisdude said that "For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required." I took that to mean that one does not need more than 100g to hit optimal, but more would not subtract from that.
But... I'm quite a bit below that so I want to know why 100g is optimal too. I'm assuming he doesn't mean it for everyone in all circumstances
Thank you for reading my comment with intelligence13 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
That is not a comparison to a broad range of diets. Is is only lF vs. LC. So, yes I would agree. But it proves nothing about 100gr. CHO being optimal as an overall diet.
I don't need to disclaim anything. I didn't make any assertion. I only stated that I would like to see any objective info that support your assertion. It was a statement made without prejudice. What you posted did not succeed in supporting your assertion in my view. It was far too narrow a comparison.
You seem to view everything as some kind of argument.11 -
Additionally, after looking more closely at the study summaries, kcals and protein were not held constant in any of them as far as I could see. If I am mistaken, please point to specifically where this is shown.6
-
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions